Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Have your say: Anti-abortion groups banned from becoming university societies

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60

Profesh

The Voltaire Society have been curiously reticent on this issue.

Reply 61

fallen_acorns

Original post by Stiff Little Fingers

Amazing how many people who cry about "muh freeze peach" don't understand what it actually is. You may be entitled to your view, but the university/students Union is under no obligation to provide you with a platform and/or funding (as societies tend to get each year) as a result. Should the unions be funding anti-woman (they're not pro-life, no pro-life group has ever given a **** about fair treatment or quality of life once it's out the womb) groups? No.

the idea that pro-life people don't give a **** about women after they give birth... is an entirely unfounded claim thats banded around a lot..

I've never seen anyone actually justify it with an evidence or reasoning.. it just sounds good because right-wing = don't care.

But if we take the american context - as pro-life is an american thing.. I find it hard to believe its not true. After all its been well documented that right-wing people, and especially religious people (who make up most of the pro-lifers) give more to charity.. and are more involved in their local societies. There is also a large number of pro-life womens-health centres that offer support and help for free to women who need it. (anything except abortion that is)

So I don't get it? The only area that I can imagine pro-life = against babies after they are born.. is that I would bet there is a correlation between pro-life and and anti-single parent benefits.Because again the religious part..

But overall the whole 'they only care about them in the womb' - just seems like a trendy soundbite, and I am doubtful it has a lot of basis in reality.

Reply 62

username1148663

Original post by candokoala

Here's where you can post a comment about our Anti-abortion groups banned from becoming official university societies article.

Read the full Anti-abortion groups banned from becoming official university societies article and join in the discussion by posting a message below.

Clearly they should be able to have a society if they want, how they conduct themselves such as accosting people going into clinics however shouldn’t be allowed

Reply 63

Good bloke

Original post by SHallowvale

When would abortion ever come up as a serious topic in a working environment? Never once have I ever spoken to a colleague about it and even if I did it wouldn't matter to the work I'm meant to be doing.

And again, you're assuming that because we don't allow certain groups to form societies that students will never be challenged with dealing with different opinions.

Did you get the impression I think you will be discussing abortion at work? Really? Or did I say something else entirely?.

Reply 64

jameswhughes

Original post by bubblecat

I have never come across a Vegan society that demeans people the way anti-abortion groups do. Do you see Vegans saying that God is going to punish them for eating meat? All most of them do is cook Vegan meals and hang out. Trans-activists also arent demeaning or demonising anyone - all they’re doing is campaigning for equal rights.

Anti-abortion groups on the other hand are trying to take away a womans right simply because they dont agree with it and they’ll use awful methods to go about doing it - even though it doesnt have any affect on them whatsoever whether someone gets an abortion or not.

Your examples are in no way comparable to anti-abortion groups.

Yes, those nice tolerant vegans. :rofl:

Reply 65

bubblecat

Original post by jameswhughes

Yes, those nice tolerant vegans. :rofl:

uh huh uh huh, a uni society??????????

also my favourite thing is being linked to articles from The Sun of all newspapers 😂

Reply 66

username1148663

Original post by bubblecat

uh huh uh huh, a uni society??????????

also my favourite thing is being linked to articles from The Sun of all newspapers 😂

Wot u got against tits mate? 😁

Reply 67

bubblecat

Original post by paul514

Wot u got against tits mate? 😁

👍🏻

Reply 68

username521617

I'm not sure what the rules about this are, but I'm of the opinion that a university student body, which also gets its money from students, should be obliged to provide funding equally to student societies. All the student societies should have equal entitlement because they are part of the University, part of the Union, and all of them are paying school tuition and and Union dues. They should not be denying funding over conflicts in political beliefs. It's unethical and discriminatory.

Reply 69

username521617

Original post by Stiff Little Fingers

They are if they are already using students' tuition and union dues to provide funding and platforms to students. These anti-abortion students are equally students of the University and members of the Union. Therefore, they should be entitled to all the same privileges and services regardless of their views, provided they aren't going to be breaking any rules or laws (and it was not made evident that they would be).

There is no evidence that this society is "anti-woman." Millions of women around the globe are anti-abortion. Enough of the slanderous rhetoric.

Reply 70

Good bloke

Original post by Dandaman1

Enough of the slanderous rhetoric.

Among student politicians it seems to be de rigueur to accuse your opponent of spreading hatred and of causing possible offence. It is the equivalent of shouting 'Blasphemy!' and pointing at a random passer-by (who happens to be your irritating neighbour) in Pakistan. It is guaranteed to have your opponent silenced.

it's all a bit ironic really as accusing someone falsely of spreading hatred is rather offensive, to say the least.

Reply 71

Good bloke

Original post by Profesh

The Voltaire Society have been curiously reticent on this issue.

Its members have all died, I'm afraid. I'm not anti-abortion though. I favour the law as it stands in the UK, which seems to me to balance the issue rather well.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 72

Andrew97

Entertainment Forum Helper, Debate & Current Affairs Helper

Why are you banging on about the GOP when this case is about 2 Scottish unis?

Reply 73

Andrew97

Entertainment Forum Helper, Debate & Current Affairs Helper

You could reply without being condensending you know, it is possible. Regardless in post 66 you start talking about the first amendment like it is somehow relevant.

Reply 74

Andrew97

Entertainment Forum Helper, Debate & Current Affairs Helper

Fair enough.

Reply 75

fallen_acorns

the key bit is your middle paragraph - its not that they don't care. To think that you have to be biased beyond belief and believe that half of the people in your country are horrible individuals. If that's really what you believe then you are beyond the relms of reasonable political opinions and into ideologal/religious fanatisism.

Its that GOP - or the right in america believes in small state, big communities/families. They want provision and help for the poor and needy, but they want it to come through family, community and church - rather than mandated and provided by the goverment.

Hence the facts about right-leaning individuals and church goers being statistically more charitable.

So the arguement "the right-wing (GOP) pro-life position is actually simply just pro-birth" - is not sensible at all.

What is true is:

The right-wing position cares just as much about people as the left-wing position, they just think that society should manifest its caring and compasionate side in a different way.

Anyone who believes - whether they are on the right or left - that the other side is fundimentally uncaring, unkind, or nasty, doesn't have balanced view of how poltiics and society works.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 76

fallen_acorns

Firstly - I don't care about your experiance and the people you know. Your experiance with members from the right is irrelevant when we are talking about a country of hundreds of millions. You say again and again in your post 'they may believe it, but they don't do it' - which is simply wrong. They do act on it. With their wallets. The data is clear and undenaible. Right wing people give more, support more.. they even give blood more!

You are just to biased and to deep in your political ideology to accept that they other side is not full of monsters is just full of people who believe things can be fixed in a different way, and express their care in a different way.

As for the rest - ive gone through it in bold in the quote.

---

See bellow for data:

"On average, religiously affiliated households donate $1,590 to charity annually, while households with no religious affiliation contribute $695."

"A Chronicle of Philanthropy study released this month found that American giving is in decline. From 2000 to 2014 the share of American households donating to charity dropped by nearly 11 points, from 66.2 percent to 55.5 percent."

"Although the Philanthropy Panel Study does not compare millennial giving to that of older generations at the same age, other research has shown the up-and-coming generation is less charitable than its predecessors."
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/30/religious-people-more-likely-give-charity-study/

"Overall, the states in which people gave the highest percentage of their adjusted gross incomes were also states that voted for Romney, while states in which people gave the lowest percentage of their adjusted gross income went for Obama. The top 17 states for rate of giving all went for Romney."
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2014/10/17/Who-s-More-Generous-Liberals-or-Conservatives

"According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes."

"People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often."
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

Reply 77

username521617

All those societies and associations are likely to involve some sort of incitement to rule-breaking, hostility and illegality by their very nature.

Those against abortion are against it because they see it as the unjust termination of human life. What a bunch of Nazis, am I right?

The SU has a responsibility to treat students equally. It is wrong for it to act against its members politically and deny them what it would give other societies purely on the basis of a difference in belief. Again, if no rules or laws are being broken, they have no justification in blocking their members from forming a society just like everyone else can.

If it was down to me, student unions would be prohibited from taking political stances on anything other than the interests of students as students in the university. That's supposed to be a student union's job. They would (and should) have no business dictating acceptable stances on abortion or anything beyond strictly student-university affairs.

Reply 78

akbar0123

At the end of the day the taxpayer funds these universities and they are public institutions. As such, they shouldn’t discriminate against students who have a different view. Being anti-abortion does not come under hate speech in this country and therefore their views should be allowed. Of course, a society that encourages murder or genocide should probably not be allowed but I think the university should allow an antiabortion society to exist.

Reply 79

akbar0123

But a major source of funding for student unions is through donations from the university itself. Such funding should not be given if the student union fails to abide by freedom of speech.